Sorry, but you are just assuming that the borrow checker is an authority of safety, when, even stated by rust lang developers, it is not.
The borrow checker is known to be far in to “overly cautious” territory.
The borrow checker is known to be far in to “overly cautious” territory.
Rather, I think that the static analysis we see in today's languages just isn't powerful/flexible enough to reason about safety in a lot of the patterns that we know are safe. I'm also uncertain if it can _ever_ catch up to what we know to be safe, but I wouldn't be surprised if we get there in a few hundred years.
For example, borrow checking is a step forward and can guarantee safety, but does nothing about the other half of correctness, specifically liveness. [0]
Linear types (like in Austral [1] and Vale's higher RAII [2]) can help guarantee liveness, but we still have further to go.
Both are based on single-ownership (in the C++ sense) like Rust, which introduces errors that e.g. Haskell would not.
But even Haskell (and LiquidHaskell which has linear types) don't go far enough; Coq goes even further.
So yes, like you say, we have a long way to go w.r.t. correctness, even past the borrow checker though it is a big step forward.
To my original point though, even all of these tools put together will put restrictions on a program such that it sometimes won't be allowed to take the most optimal approach. Perhaps someday we'll get there!
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_and_liveness_properties
Yes. You literally did assume that the borrow checker is an authority, as seen here.
To be frank with you, given that zig is 95% of the way there, I feel that you are “diving off the deep end” when stating things like “Haskell doesn’t go far enough”. Haskell typing system is a nice experiment, but I don’t believe to be good in any capacity, let alone “not going far enough”.
Haskell, in my opinion, a great case of “solving a problem before even asking what the problem really is”.
Seems to have done pretty damn well IMO. Not that I've used it for 25 years, but I liked it and it introduced me to FP which totally changed how I thought of programming. I guess we have to differ on this.
Whereas I believe that concepts are tools for programmers to reach for when appropriate, functional programmers believe concepts are rules and reaching for them should be mandatory, no matter how much bullshit they force you to add for no reason other than you accepted from the get go that, for example, immutability should be mandatory.
This is a massive fundamental problem with Haskell and all language that take hardline stances on things that are better left to the users. In this regard, I’d say it’s a complete failure. It’s horrible for teaching. You need to know more than you need to know for Java just to use it. It’s horrible for research. It has hardline fundamental stances that rejects exploration, and therefor is research averse. It is horrible for industrial applications as there are massive ranges of industry that simply cannot give to the whims of Haskell for one reason or another, but probably multiple reasons cause Haskell is terrible.
Thank you. This is completely and utterly true.
Based on what? It’s almost like “functional programmer” is not a single entity controlled by Big Haskell - you are just spewing bullshit about a made up boogeyman.
Could you give some examples of such concepts? It's rather hard to understand what you mean in the abstract.